Tiger wrote:If Dzogchen tantras are uncreated and timeless, like Vedas, they do not constitute Buddhism. More like pseudo-Buddhism of Shankara.

Nothing exists beyond the mind.

Buddhism is all about the means that has a conditional component. While buddhism has its body that is uncreated, buddhism does not involved its practice with it, words that describe the ultimate has little utility in term of practice. Unfortunately, the later is what many followers of dzogchen are attached to. The buddha himself did not want to mention the all mighty creator, because such knowledge will not contribute to anything, for the sake of communicating the doctrine of permanence, the dzogchen tradition taught a samantabadra which is equavalent to the supreme creator, it has no other utility except to represent the body (dharmakaya), all these talks of the words that are connected to the body does not contribute to anything.

Tiger wrote:If Dzogchen tantras are uncreated and timeless, like Vedas, they do not constitute Buddhism. More like pseudo-Buddhism of Shankara.

Nothing exists beyond emptiness. Like Nagarjuna says, if there was something permanent (beyond mind), then it would still be useless because it couldn't influence dharmas that are governed by cause and effect.

You are not the first to say that Dzogchen stands apart from mainstream Buddhism. If you haven't received the transmission then it's quite easy to be dismissive. Emptiness is not an inert voidness. You know this right? The clarity aspect of emptiness, the energy aspect, which is not separate or mind-made, this is what in Dzogchen constitutes the path. So there is no saying that anything goes beyond emptiness in Dzogchen and no attempt is made to posit a permanent eternal aspect. You would need to make a study of the Semde literature before being so dismissive.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Jyoti, unless you are simply ignoring whole sections of any Dzogchen texts/books you are 'studying', you will see that a qualified Guru is essential, no authentic Dzogchen text says otherwise, that's not up for debate. Until you have one, then what your practicing is simply not Dzogchen, sure it might seem like Dzogchen, and the language maybe Dzogchen words....you may even think you have had an experience that is Dzogchen....but without a Guru, It's of little or no worth.

Skip this whole 'I can do it on my own' trip, books are a great support, but they are not going to establish you in your natural state. Time to wake up.

He can say what he likes. However he needs to put forward a more coherent argument. He has talked about those who follow Dzogchen in dismissive terms but I haven't read any thing from him that is a well thought out criticism of Dzogchen. Obviously not from Jyoti either.Both seem to be stuck with their pride. Like upturned cups. Neither of them are good adverts for whichever approach to dharma they favor.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

The idea that "self-liberation" implies liberation without a teachers instruction or transmission is a pretty common misunderstanding. Self-liberation is about how dharmas, thoughts, emotions etc. are "self-liberated" in the state of Dzogchen rather than being either renounced or transformed as are the methods of sutra and tantra.We should inform ourselves before we make sweeping criticisms of anything.

Josef wrote:The idea that "self-liberation" implies liberation without a teachers instruction or transmission is a pretty common misunderstanding. Self-liberation is about how dharmas, thoughts, emotions etc. are "self-liberated" in the state of Dzogchen rather than being either renounced or transformed as are the methods of sutra and tantra.We should inform ourselves before we make sweeping criticisms of anything.

My criticism was that one still requires effort or external agent (Guru) - causes and conditions - to make a quantum leap from this conventional state (of mind) to the state of great "Self-perfection". You may call this state a state beyond cause and effect in which dharmas, thoughts, emotions etc are "self-liberated" but you may still require energy to reach that state. Kind of how electrons need energy to leap to higher quantum states in an atom. And the moment you require "effort" or action to reach that state, the vehicle cannot be called beyond cause and effect.

Also my criticism is not towards Dzogchen method, but common Dzogchenpas who easily get high-headed by the fact that their vehicle is supposed to be the most supreme and yet requires the least effort among all the Buddhist methods.

Tiger. Cause and effect are not denied. It is that the natural state is beyond cause and effect. The implication is that one does not create enlightenment as a conditioned effect of practice or renunciation for example. Why do you think you know enough about Dzogchen? What Dzogchen tantras have you studied? Which texts are you using to support your accusations?

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

pueraeternus wrote:...but I won't say that the other vehicles are incapable of approaching gnosis and attainment of anuttarasamyaksambodhi on their own terms.

No one has said this.

Glad to hear this. The way some of the dzogchen threads around here went, it gave a lot of people the impression that dzogchenpas think only through dzogchen can one attain complete enlightenment.

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

I guess it comes down to a perceived arrogance on the part of Dzogchen practitioners. That one's nose might be put out of joint by perceived triumphalism. This is a common complaint here and I guess there is some merit to it.It's important for Dzogchen practitioners not to want to condition others. So we should remain a little bit hidden. However from time to time someone brings into the forum unwarranted criticism of Dzogchen or a misunderstanding and it seems right that the misunderstanding is pointed out. As for me. I don't care for enlightenment as a goal. I've given up the idea of wanting to achieve something. I have the Dzogchen transmission and confidence and that's all I have. I will say that my confidence in Dzogchen is partly based on how effective it is at clearing up suffering. How one interprets the teaching is related to their capacity. But it is important to try to get to the root of the teaching and not dismiss it for personal reasons. It's also important to be open and to make sure that the path we are on doesn't become another ego trip. So we work with a teacher and the teacher stops us from becoming an egotistical monster. A self-anointed guru. These things are important if the teaching is to reduce our fixations and suffering. Actually this comes way before any idea of enlightenment.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

pueraeternus wrote:Glad to hear this. The way some of the dzogchen threads around here went, it gave a lot of people the impression that dzogchenpas think only through dzogchen can one attain complete enlightenment.

All nine yānas, including the yāna of gods and humans, lead directly or indirectly to full awakening. (boy this thread has gone off-topic)

That's the fun part. Won't have it any other way.

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.